On 10/28/06, Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yoshie:
>Looking at Nepal and Venezuela is instructive. Today, people on the
>Left, even those who come from the classically Maoist tradition like
>the CPN (Maoist), are not trying to change their countries in a
>classic Marxist revolutionary fashion and establish a dictatorship of
>the proletariat. They appear to think that today revolutionaries
>should engage, and persuade as many of the rest of their country to
>engage, in a slow process of transformation. Neither of the
>revolutionaries have nationalized as much of the economy as the
>Iranian Revolution, which was not even led by socialists, did in one
>fell swoop. That says that we live in a different era of politics
>than in the era of anti-colonial and anti-neo-colonial revolutions of
>the 20th century.
I don't understand the point here at all. There is no industry in
Nepal so what is there to nationalize? That leaves aside the question
of the ability of the Maoists to nationalize anything thing since
they haven't taken power. The pressing need in Nepal is land reform.
The country is extremely backward. We are not talking about Taiwan,
for pete's sake.
I don't know what Venezuela needs to nationalize since CITGO was
state-owned even before Chavez took power.
Classical Marxist revolutionaries consolidated their power into one
party -- such consolidation is probably a prerequisite for a
dictatorship of the proletariat that expropriates all the
expropriators. In Nepal and Venezuela, revolutionaries have chosen to
promote processes in which multiple parties participate and determine
national agendas through constituent assemblies first. Today's
revolutionaries emphasize democracy and participation, appear to favor
a mixed economy even more than the Sandinistas, and favor foreign
investment provided it is in their nation's interest. In Venezuela's
case, it has even gone into the direction of privatizing some
state-owned assets, as well as taking over some non-productive assets
from private hands, to create cooperatives. Chavez has spoken
favorably about the Grameen Bank* and the Venezuelan government has
begun a microcredit program through Women's Development Bank:
"Interview with Nora Castañeda: President of the Women's Development
Bank," <http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/global/nc_wdb_int.html>.
* <http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/14/america/LA_GEN_Venezuela_Nobel.php>
enezuela's Chavez calls Nobel winner Yunus an example in anti-poverty fight
The Associated Press
Published: October 13, 2006
CARACAS, Venezuela Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez praised Nobel
Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus as a helper of the poor and called
the Bangladeshi economist and microcredit pioneer a friend.
Chavez paused during a televised speech Friday night to read a news
report on Yunus' selection for the prize along with his Grameen Bank.
"Let's give a round of applause to our friend," Chavez said, calling
him an "example in the fight against poverty."
Yunus founded the Grameen Bank in the 1970s and pioneered the concept
of microcredit — very small loans to would-be entrepreneurs without
access to collateral. The practice has spread around the world and
helped millions of people overcome poverty.
"We're going down that road," said Chavez, who has promised to
eventually eliminate poverty in his oil-producing country.
CARACAS, Venezuela Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez praised Nobel
Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus as a helper of the poor and called
the Bangladeshi economist and microcredit pioneer a friend.
Chavez paused during a televised speech Friday night to read a news
report on Yunus' selection for the prize along with his Grameen Bank.
"Let's give a round of applause to our friend," Chavez said, calling
him an "example in the fight against poverty."
Yunus founded the Grameen Bank in the 1970s and pioneered the concept
of microcredit — very small loans to would-be entrepreneurs without
access to collateral. The practice has spread around the world and
helped millions of people overcome poverty.
"We're going down that road," said Chavez, who has promised to
eventually eliminate poverty in his oil-producing country.
I think the USA is too
bogged down in Iraq to meddle in Venezuela's affairs but I guarantee
you that if it is forced to withdraw, it will refocus its energies
there. This will be especially true if the next president is Barak
Obama who will have a feel-good post-Bush mandate to project American
power in a more "effective" manner a la Council of Foreign Relations.
If the US intervenes in Venezuela, you can be assured that the
financial sector will be the main bastion of the counter-revolution.
In such a showdown situation, Chavez will be forced to confront the
financial bourgeoisie or else lose power.
That's the way things might move, but then again they may not. We
really don't know.
--
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>
<http://mrzine.org>
<http://monthlyreview.org/>
